Originally posted by Foxsteak I would argue that corporations are good for the poor.

Hear me out.

Corporations have this mass production advantage and an almost untouchable working formula in their services with the BEST people working to keep their automated service to people at the BEST price possible.

This over production means that goods and services could trickle down (mostly cheap materials like food) could go to literally homeless people with a combination of charity.

I was so surprised that when I was at a homeless shelter, I was expecting crap, but I got high quality food, things like corn flakes, milk, a toothbrush with paste. Now, obviously, it was the charity that made that available, but the actual production was due to corporations. This could also be applied to Union Carbide, US steel, Exon, and US oil. The mass production has indeed been beneficial to the poor.

IE, mass production trickles down further and further. I know, most of you might be thinking, democratic collectivism where robot politicians decide who is entitled to what rations, but on the other hand, poor people really do take corporations for granted in how so much production could create such growth over the last century.

I'd argue they definitely can be in relatively isolated incidents and could be leaps and bounds greater for every income class.

Originally posted by cdtm It's far too late to fix the dam, I'm afraid.

We're already at a point where the lower/middle classes are being abandoned by businesses in favor of capturing money from the rich and "almost rich". Various supermarkets, for example, have adopted a strategy where all the affordable mass produced junk is replaced with much more expensive "premium" items that would appeal to people living along the shoreline and such..

That's also why drugs get hiked 1000%, and health care expenses keep skyrocketing. More profit in the 10% that has 99% of the wealth, even if that bottom 90% can no longer afford to give you their money (Which is pocket change in comparison.)

I mostly agree that it's too late to fix, but I operate on a principal of "do as you'd do in a perfect world," so I still argue it could and should be strived for: that perfect balance of democracy, socialism, incredibly moderate authoritarianism, and a focus on what 'freedom' can be, the kind of freedom where everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't disrupt everyone else's freedom. I know, though, it's a pipe dream and likely unachievable.

However, overall, you make a very fair, realistic, and unfortunate, point.

We live in a world where it is actually cheaper and more cost-effective to be rich. If that doesn't show how broken things are, I don't know what else does.

Originally posted by Foxsteak but on the other hand, poor people really do take corporations for granted in how so much production could create such growth over the last century.

The corporations are one of the main reasons that there's such a huge inequality divide (and thus so many homeless people) in the first place, you plum. Giving a bit of free food away should be a given, considering everything else they've done.

Originally posted by Scribble I mostly agree that it's too late to fix, but I operate on a principal of "do as you'd do in a perfect world," so I still argue it could and should be strived for: that perfect balance of democracy, socialism, incredibly moderate authoritarianism, and a focus on what 'freedom' can be, the kind of freedom where everyone can do as they please as long as it doesn't disrupt everyone else's freedom. I know, though, it's a pipe dream and likely unachievable.

However, overall, you make a very fair, realistic, and unfortunate, point.

We live in a world where it is actually cheaper and more cost-effective to be rich. If that doesn't show how broken things are, I don't know what else does.

The corporations are one of the main reasons that there's such a huge inequality divide (and thus so many homeless people) in the first place, you plum. Giving a bit of free food away should be a given, considering everything else they've done.

Corporations boosted the economies of western civilisation and have done so since medieval guilds; protection of goods.

The inequality divide is a byproduct. Thatcher made the point that the poorest under a capitalist system will ultimately live better lives than under a socialist system. For example, rednecks in the 80s lived better lives than eastern europeans in the 80s.

Originally posted by Foxsteak Corporations boosted the economies of western civilisation and have done so since medieval guilds; protection of goods.

The inequality divide is a byproduct. Thatcher made the point that the poorest under a capitalist system will ultimately live better lives than under a socialist system. For example, rednecks in the 80s lived better lives than eastern europeans in the 80s.

I made the anecdote of charity, but it's trickle down economics, bro.

Thatcher made that point, completely missing the other point that a further fusing of socialism and capitalism would probably make things even better for everyone. Just because the poorest in this country are 'better off' here than in another country, it doesn't mean that this system isn't still broken and that their lives aren't still marred by a lack of social mobility or opportunity and that they don't still live in abject poverty.

Being pissed on from a great height is preferable to getting shat on from a great height, but personally I'd just rather not get pissed on or shat on at all. I'm certainly not going to wave up to the suit with his knob out pissing on me and say "Well done bro, thanks for saving me from getting shat on! Top bloke! Capitalism for the win!"

Your own lack of social mobility combined with what could be described as your "cucking" for big business of late is an interesting element to this, though, so at least there's that.

Originally posted by Kurk I thought Ziggy himself said the mods were going to allow him to return (as he is a sock) as long as he didn't promote conflict on here. Seems he's already violated the terms.

And you don't think an all purpose offense statement like that was meant facetiously? I mean what race was he trying to promote the superiority or inferiority of?

__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"

Originally posted by Emperordmb And you don't think an all purpose offense statement like that was meant facetiously? I mean what race was he trying to promote the superiority or inferiority of?

oh stop. he spammed the forum with casually racist shit.

__________________

Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.